Accused repeat offender facing scrutiny by state officials

There is dissension within the Public Utility Commission over appropriate penalty.

March 21, 2012|Paul Muschick | The Watchdog

A Salisbury Township man and his company are the focus of a debate over how much an accused repeat offender should be fined for breaking state regulations.

Last week, the Public Utility Commission rejected a proposed settlement with Robert Levan, who owns Night Moves. The commission's enforcement arm had accused Levan of representing himself as a mover without state certification.

Levan had negotiated an agreement with the PUC's lawyers to pay a $500 fine. But an administrative law judge said that fine was too soft because Levan had been fined for the same violation twice previously. The judge sought a fine of $5,000.

Levan, who declined to comment, opposed the increase. So did the PUC's lawyers. That triggered the PUC to unanimously scrap the settlement last Thursday and schedule the case for an expedited hearing.

The current case against Levan dates to 2008. He had "offered to provide the household goods move" of an Upper Macungie Township family, agreeing to provide three men and a driver, allegedly at a rate of $130 an hour, according to the proposed settlement.

An enforcement officer with the PUC's Bureau of Transportation and Safety saw Levan driving a rental truck to the family's home, but before reaching that residence, Levan spotted the officer and turned around, the settlement says.

The bureau cited Levan, alleging he "held himself out to transport household goods" without a certificate of public convenience. Household goods movers operating within Pennsylvania must be licensed by the PUC. They must maintain adequate levels of insurance coverage and charge PUC-approved fees.

In his response to the citation, Levan denied the allegation. The settlement says he agreed only "to provide a pack-and-load service," providing a dolly and packing materials and arranging for two other people to load the customer's items into the customer's vehicle.

Levan told authorities he picked up a rental truck "because it was inconvenient for the customer to retrieve the truck on his own," according to the settlement. He said he turned around "to avoid the appearance of impropriety."

The state and Levan reached the proposed settlement in August. Why it would take three years to resolve something like this is beyond me, but that's state government for you.

In the settlement, Levan agreed that he "offered to transport household goods" for compensation, but said he never performed the task or was paid for it.

PUC lawyers believed a $500 fine was sufficient, noting that while Levan's "actions were likely willful," he never actually performed the unauthorized move. The agreement says the violation affected only one customer and "did not have lasting consequences. No one was physically harmed and no property was damaged."

The agreement said that while Levan also had prior violations of the same nature in 1991 and 1994, 14 years had passed.

That opinion wasn't shared by administrative law Judge Dennis Buckley, who recommended bumping the fine to $5,000.

In his opinion, Buckley wrote that Levan had admitted breaking the law, and "has clearly continued a course of conduct that he knows to be illegal."

PUC records show that in the previous cases, Levan offered a similar defense, that he was not paid to transport goods, only to load and unload them. In settlement agreements, though, he admitted to the violations.

Buckley said the $500 fine levied in the 1994 case obviously wasn't enough of a deterrent, so a $500 fine in this case "is wholly inadequate." He said Levan's action "is a disservice both to the public and to the many certificated carriers that conduct their business in this commonwealth in a lawful manner."

In a November letter to the PUC, Levan said he would not agree to a $5,000 fine and requested a hearing on his case.

"I was merely trying to help out a customer with a pregnant wife," Levan wrote. "I never received compensation or was involved in any way with [the] move."

The PUC's lawyers also opposed the increased fine. They contended the judge modified the settlement without providing due process, and said the $5,000 fine was inconsistent with penalty guidelines, which cap the fine for a single violation at $1,000.

I'll write more about this case when it is resolved.

State and federal officials regulate moving companies to protect consumers. They want to ensure moving services are provided safely and responsibly. If you're in the market for a moving company, make sure they have the proper government licenses.

Get a written contract, and make sure you have adequate insurance. The state requires movers to provide coverage of 60 cents per pound, but that amounts to only pennies on the dollar for your belongings. If a 50-pound television worth $1,000 is damaged, you'd get $30.

Many movers will offer you the opportunity to buy additional coverage. Full-value protection coverage will repair damaged items to pre-move condition, pay you or replace them if the damage is not repairable. You also can check if your homeowner's insurance will cover you.

Look for coverage exclusions in your moving contract, as high-value items such as collectibles, firearms, art and jewelry may not be covered. You may want to pack them in your car instead of on the moving truck.

The Watchdog is published Thursdays and Sundays. Contact me by email at watchdog@mcall.com, by phone at 610-841-2364 (ADOG), by fax at 610-820-6693, or by mail at The Morning Call, 101 N. Sixth St., Allentown, PA, 18101. Follow me on Twitter at mcwatchdog and on Facebook at Morning Call Watchdog.